Now, the
original members of progressive heavy metal band Queensrÿche are embroiled in a
hotly-contested litigation that is preparing for an imminent trial in a Washington State Court. The band's intellectual property is owned by Tri-Ryche Corporation, which is the company owned by the band's members.

(One legal oddity of this case is that it is an intra-corporate dispute between band members, which is a purely state law matter, whereas the vast majority of trademark cases invoke exclusively federal jurisdiction).

Last
year, Rolling Stone reported that fans--and lead
singer Geoff Tate himself--were stunned to learn that Queensrÿche had
fired its lead singer after nearly thirty years with the band.

After the
2012 split, two bands were simultaneously using the name and Queensrÿche brand. They
are each identified by their frontman, with one version led by new singer Todd
La Torre, with original members Rockenfield, Wilton and Jackson and guitarist
Lundgren (who joined in 2009) and the other led by original singer Geoff
Tate, with former guitarist Gray, Randy Gane and Robert Sarzo and
Simon Wright.

"Queensrÿche" With Lead Singer Todd La Torre

The
litigation centers around who should own the rights to control
the Queensrÿche brand and related trademarks after an alleged
"assault" by Tate on the other band members occurred in Sao Paolo, Brazil early last year.

The band's core legal argument is that Tate's alleged assault justified his firing as a form 'corporate action' to address his breach of duty to the other members of the entity.

Tate's court papers allege that "[t]he cut-and-thrust of Defendants' motion is that
the alleged 'assault' in Sao Paulo, Brazil justifies all of their 'corporate'
action under the Business Judgment Rule and leaves Geoff Tate with
no defense."

First, Tate argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact demanding a trial regarding
what happened in Brazil. Second, Tate substantively disputes the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident in
Brazil and does not 'admit' he 'assaulted' anyone.

In his Declaration in
Support of the Tates' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Geoff
Tate swears that Mr. Rockenfield taunted him, saying, 'I
fired your wife, I fired your daughter and your son-in-law, and you're next.' Angry, Geoff Tate admits that he 'went after' Mr. Rockenfield,
but never touched him."

The Court apparently agreed that a trial was necessary to sort out the mess. According to music blog Blabbermouth, the trial will start in January 2014.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Sandi
Russell, along with her sister, Nancy Hansen, are two sisters operating a small
coffee shop in Mission, Kansas. Their coffee shop's name is "Twisted
Sisters," and their domain name is www.TwistedSistersCoffeeShop.com.

According
to the letter, the Twisted Sister musical group coined the name “TWISTED
SISTER” in 1973, and “the juxtaposition of those two words never appeared prior
to the creation and adoption of the mark by the band.”

Continuously
since then, the band has had extensive media publicity and exposure of its
mark, having released at least 12 full albums and 4 DVDs since 1973 under
the TWISTED SISTER mark, which have been distributed and sold throughout the
United States and worldwide.

Consequently,
according to its lawyers, the band’s trademark is well-established and legally
deemed "famous."

It is
true that Twisted Sister has a federally registered and incontestable federal
trademark (1,098,366) issued in 1978, but that trademark only covers:
"ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES RENDERED BY A VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL GROUP."

The
letter notes that the band has been successful in requiring that the Twisted
Sister Bakery in Chicago and Twisted Sister Pizza in Massachusetts change their
names.

Not
mentioned in the letter is that third parties have
apparently received numerous approved trademarks for marks using
"TWISTED SISTER" (and variants), such as for Twisted Sisters
Wine (3,443,617), Twisted Sisters clothing boutique (3,216,315), Twisted
Sisters Our Business Is Dyeing colored yarns (3,027,439) and Twisted Sista for
hair care products (3,947,150). All of those are live trademarks that
appear to have nothing to do with the band.

Therefore,
to establish even a prima facie case of trademark infringement, the
lawyers would need to plead that the coffee shop's continued use of the “Twisted Sisters” name in
connection with a small coffee shop is likely to lead to consumer confusion as
to endorsement, sponsorship or affiliation with the 1980's band.

This claim would
likely be an uphill battle from an evidentiary standpoint, and would probably require an expensive survey expert. One suspects that instances of actual confusion among consumers would be difficult to locate.

However,
assuming the trademark is indeed “famous” and worthy of legal protection under
the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, the band need only prove that the use of
the unauthorized name is likely to dilute, either through tarnishment or
blurring, the distinctive nature and fame of the band’s mark. In this
context, this claim may be easier to plead even in the absence of confusion, as there is no doubt that the Twisted
Sisters Coffee Shop likely "calls to mind" the 80's band, potentially
blurring its distinctive quality.

Faced with
the band’s demand that it change its name, the coffee shop’s owners reportedly
intend to do just that. As of today, the coffee shop's website is no longer operational.

Disclaimer and Terms of Use Policy

The Gioconda Law Group Blog is for general informational purposes only and is not intended to convey legal advice, or create any form of attorney-client relationship whatsoever. If you believe that you need legal advice, retain competent counsel licensed in your jurisdiction and do not just consult a blog.

The individual views stated in blog posts are entirely those of their respective authors, and do not necessarily reflect the positions or views of the Gioconda Law Group's clients.

Comment Form Guidelines: Comments using keywords, spam or splog-like URLs, or suspicious information in the comment form will be edited or deleted.

Commenter Privacy and Protection: All email, snail mail, phone numbers, and any private and personal information posted in any comment will be deleted as soon as possible to protect the privacy of the commenter. To prevent such editing, never share this private information within the blog comment.

Language and Manners: This blog is “family friendly” and comments which include offensive or inappropriate language, or considered by the blog owner and administrator to be rude and offensive, will be edited or deleted.

A Comment is Conversation: A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

How The Blogger Will Respond: Comments on this blog will only be responded to in direct response to the blog comment. The blogger will not (or will) respond privately via email or other communication method to a blog comment.

What To Do If Your Comment Does Not Appear: If you leave a comment on this blog and it does not appear in a reasonable time period, and you know that it does not violate these Comment Policies, contact the blogger by e-mail.

No Personal Attack Comments Permitted: In the interest of fair play, no personal attacks are permitted in this blog’s comments. You may question or argue the content, but not attack the blogger, nor any other commenters. Failure to respect fellow participants on this blog could result in removal and blocked access.

Comment Spam: Any comment assumed to be possible comment spam will be deleted and marked as comment spam.

Commenters Blocked: Anyone who violates this Comments Policy may be blocked from future access and/or commenting on this blog.

All Rights Reserved: The blog owner, administrator, contributor, editor, and/or author reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog.

Hold Harmless: All comments within this blog are the responsibility of the commenter, not the blog owner, administrator, contributor, editor, or author. By submitting a comment on our blog, you agree that the comment content is your own, and to hold this site, the Gioconda Law Group PLLC and all its owners, employees and representatives harmless from any and all repercussions, damages, or liability resulting therefrom.

DMCA:

Please send any and all correspondence regarding requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to the following: